Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (159438)	3/22/2005 7:10:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You said we have overwhelming force in Iraq. Apparently you also mean that overwhelming force can also mean less than the appropriate number of troops. Wow. Let me make an analogy. The FBI has overwhelming force against any organized crime group in the US. But organized crime continues to happen. Overwhelming force is great to have but it doesn't assure you will meet your objectives. I define overwhelming force as a level of force that would quickly destroy any known enemy that stands and fights against you. Guerillas, insurgents, and terrorists don't stand and fight. To police and control can require a lot more soldiers (even if less raw application of force) than to overwhelm and destroy. However it was shown, and warned of by military generals, that the supply line between Kuwait and Baghdad would become stretched and become unprotected. Many of the early casualties occurred along the supply line, as the bulk of the fighting force raced past to Baghdad. That left the supply line vulnerable to attack...and it was attacked many times. If you had more soldiers on the initial attack they would have been using up even more supplies. Rapidly moving forces often stetch their supply lines thin. We could have made the supply issue unimportant if we had moved slowly but their our total casualtees would likely have been higher. After the defeat and dispersal of the Iraqi Army, guerilla war tactics began. There was not adequate forces on the ground to combat these guerilla tactics, and looting and crime. This was pre warned about as well. A million men might not be enough to quickly defeat the insurgency. More men might have been useful but even with a huge army disconnected small attacks and IED plantings could have happened anyway. I think there would have been some benefit to having more troops but no reaalistic number would have simply solved the situation. The many arms supply dumps around Iraq were left unsecured, allowing insurgents to drive up load ordinance and then use it to make IED's which took a heavy toll on the many unarmored convoys. Iraq was flush with weapons, and not just as large supply dumps that could easily be guarded, even with a force of a half million. Also Syria and Iran have apparently funneled arms to the insurgents. and the insurgency is still fighting a very effective guerilla war. Not really all that effective. Tim